Understanding Reference Frames: Generality & Abstractions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the generality and abstraction of reference frames in physics, questioning whether vectors in one frame can exist in another and the relationship between different frames. It explores the idea that reference frames can be likened to different sets of coordinate axes, suggesting that transitions between them may involve spatial and rotational translations. The concept of a vector being zero in one frame, such as the gravity vector in a free-fall frame, is highlighted. Additionally, it mentions that in special relativity, transformations between inertial frames include translations, spatial rotations, and boosts, which account for motion relative to a base frame. The conversation emphasizes the complexity and interconnectivity of reference frames in understanding physical phenomena.
nanoWatt
Messages
85
Reaction score
2
I am wondering about the generality of reference frames, and how abstract they can be.

Is it possible for a vector in one reference frame to not exist in another frame? Or is there always a relation between two reference frames?

Also, are two reference frames like two different sets of coordinate axes? I mean can you always get from one reference frame to another just by knowing the position and or rotation values?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think one vector in one frame can be zero in another frame. For example, in a free fall frame, the gravity vector is juxt zero.
 
Ok, I think what I meant to say is,

Can a reference frame A always be represented in terms of reference frame B only by having a spatial and a rotational translation?
 
nanoWatt said:
Ok, I think what I meant to say is,

Can a reference frame A always be represented in terms of reference frame B only by having a spatial and a rotational translation?

In special relativity the transformations between inertial frames are translation, spatial rotation and boosts. Boosts are rotations that mix space and time and represent a frame that is moving wrt the base frame.
 

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Reference frame in collision problems
Replies
9
Views
1K
Are vectors independent of reference frames?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
Replies
18
Views
2K
I Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
Replies
1
Views
2K
Which inertial frame is used when resolving toward the centre
Replies
15
Views
1K
I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
I Energy and reference frames
2
Replies
87
Views
5K
B Thoughts about Galilean transformations
Replies
13
Views
2K
Law of inertia (inertial observer and inertial frames of reference)
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Electromagnetic field in different reference frames
Replies
23
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top